Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Young

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

May 2, 2017

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
EUGENE A. YOUNG, Appellant. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
CLAUDE A. HUTCHINSON, Appellant.

          Bjorgen C.J.

         Claude Hutchinson moves to modify our commissioner's ruling awarding appellate costs to the State after we affirmed Hutchinson's convictions. He argues (1) that his challenge to appellate costs is timely raised in a motion to modify the commissioner's ruling even absent an objection to the cost bill and (2) that we should decline to impose appellate costs. Despite his failure to object to the cost bill, we hold that Hutchinson's motion to modify the cost bill warrants consideration under RAP 1.2(c). We grant his motion to modify and refer the matter to our court commissioner to determine under current RAP 14.2 and applicable case law whether appellate costs should be waived due to Hutchinson's indigency.

         FACTS

         In the unpublished portion of State v. Young, 192 Wn.App. 850, 369 P.3d 205, review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1042 (2016), we affirmed Hutchinson's convictions for second degree rape, promoting the commercial sexual abuse of a minor, communication with a minor for immoral purposes, and second degree attempted theft. After our decision was filed, the State submitted a cost bill for appellate costs pursuant to RAP 14.4 and RCW 10.73.160(2), to which Hutchinson did not file an objection. On August 8, 2016, our court commissioner awarded appellate costs to the State, reasoning that he lacked discretion under RAP 14.2 to decline to award costs to the State as the prevailing party. Hutchinson filed a timely motion to modify the commissioner's order under RAP 17.7, requesting that all appellate costs be waived due to his indigency.

         ANALYSIS

         I. Consideration of Hutchinson's Challenge to Costs

         Hutchinson argues that we should consider his challenge to the commissioner's ruling, even though he did not object to the cost bill before the commissioner. We hold that because the commissioner was not authorized to grant Hutchinson relief from the cost bill, whether or not he objected to it, we will consider his challenge to the cost bill under RAP 1.2(c) in the interests of justice.

         1. Standard of Review/Legal Principles

         Under RCW 10.73.160(1), appellate courts "'may require an adult offender convicted of an offense to pay appellate costs.'" State v. Sinclair, 192 Wn.App. 380, 385, 367 P.3d 612, review denied, 185 Wn.2d 1034 (2016) (quoting RCW 10.73.160(1)). The statute provides that appellate costs "shall be requested in accordance with . . . Title 14 of the rules of appellate procedure." RCW 10.73.160(3). Former RAP 14.2 (1998), in turn, stated that

[a] commissioner or clerk of the appellate court will award costs to the party that substantially prevails on review, unless the appellate court directs otherwise in its decision terminating review.

(Emphasis added.) We review a motion to modify a commissioner's ruling de novo. State v. Vasquez, 95 Wn.App. 12, 15, 972 P.2d 109 (1998).

         2. RAP 1.2(c) Warrants Consideration of Hutchinson's Motion to Modify the Commissioner's Ruling

         Our recent case law has established that a party may raise a challenge to appellate costs in its opening brief, a motion for reconsideration, or through a motion to modify a commissioner's ruling on a cost bill. See Sinclair, 192 Wn.App. at 389-90; State v. Grant, 196 Wn.App. 644, 650-51, 385 P.3d 184 (2016). In Grant, however, we declined to decide the issue presented here: whether a motion to modify the commissioner's ruling would be timely in the absence of an objection to the cost bill. 196 Wn.App. at 652 n.3.

         Effective January 31, 2017, RAP 14.2 was amended to modify the awarding of costs on appeal. Because the commissioner ruled on the State's cost bill in Hutchinson's case well before these amendments were effective, we examine former RAP 14.2 (1998) in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.